AngryLittleAlchemist said:Ugh. No, Amazon does not have a Switch bias. Please stop it with the quickrickisms

But just because a console wins on amazon, doesn't mean it will win in total sales across a country. That's always been the case.

Amazon has always got it right and that's been the case 99.9% of the time and only ONCE was that to do with people not taking preorders into consideration. To state 'that's ALWAYS been the case' is to show you've not been following Amazon.

If it suddenly starts getting things wrong then it's because of how Nintendo distribute they're consoles, not because Amazon 'often gets it wrong.'

If Pachter is right then we need to adjust how we evaluate Amazon. Switch is a new console and therefore we could be looking at a new paradigm.

Currently Playing:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:Ugh. No, Amazon does not have a Switch bias. Please stop it with the quickrickisms

But just because a console wins on amazon, doesn't mean it will win in total sales across a country. That's always been the case.

It's been the case 99.9% of the time and only ONCE was that to do with people not taking preorders into consideration. To state 'that's not always the case' is to show you've not been following Amazon.

If it suddenly starts getting things wrong then it's because of how Nintendo distribute they're consoles, not because Amazon 'often gets it wrong.'

What? First of all, you've literally seen me in amazon threads all the time(prior to the last few weeks), so you know I've been "following amazon". Second of all, I do know that Amazon is practically always right, literally all I'm stating is that if the Amazon rankings were wrong this time it wouldn't indicate a bias. It would mostly indicate, as you said, Nintendo's distribution. I never said "that's not always the case", what I meant when I said "That's always been the case" was that it's, to my knowledge, always been the case that amazon rankings correlate with total rankings. And, if by chance for some odd reason Amazon's ratings didn't correlate, it wouldn't be due to some silly bias. Rereading it I see I should have made that more clear, but your perception of my comment is still really odd. It's like you're arguing over nothing.